U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer’s Environment & Public Works Committee held a hearing on Wednesday, May 14th, 2014 to assess the challenges of nuclear reactor decommissioning nationwide. Panelists called to testify at Wednesday’s senate hearing included Christopher Recchia, Public Service Department Commissioner of Vermont, Geoffrey Fettus, Senior attorney of NRDC, Donald Mosier, Council Member of the City of Del Mar, Michael Weber, Deputy Executive Director for Compliance Programs of NRC and Marvin Fertel, President & Chief Executive Officer of NEI.

Christopher Recchia’s testimony to the senate opposed a request by operators of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to discontinue off-site emergency planning after the reactor shuts down. He argued that the off-site emergency planning should continue after the reactor shuts down until all of the plant’s spent fuel rods are removed from pools and placed in dry cask storage.

NRDC’s Fettus echoed Mr. Recchia’s, noting that our primary concern with the decommissioning process is that both regulatory requirements and the agency’s oversight regime are significantly scaled back when nuclear power reactors cease operation. Such waivers have been granted and are being sought even in the event that sizable quantities of spent nuclear fuel are left in pools for potentially decades. NRDC also addressed concerns over the adequacy of the decommissioning trust funds, there to ensure the company has the ability to do the expensive and complicated work of cleaning and removing a contaminated reactor site. Fettus cited a Government Accountability Office report in his testimony that states NRC’s formula for calculating decommissioning funding allocations may not reliably estimate the entire cost especially in instances where there is an underground site contamination.

Donald Mosier’s testimony addressed the challenges in storage and disposal of the radioactive waste from the shutdown of Unit 2 and 3 nuclear reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Michael Weber of the NRC and Marvin Fertel of NEI argued that NRC has a strong record of test and power reactor decommissioning and the process gives many opportunities for local residents to involve in the process by attending meetings and by providing comments. But Senator Boxer criticized Michael Weber’s testimony saying that NRC is not doing everything to keep local communities safe during decommissioning process and they have limited involvement in it. Specifically, Chairman Boxer’s concerns stem from the fact many decommissioned power plants store spent fuel in pools far over capacity and some of these plants are located on or near earthquake faults or other issues that can cause concern. As one example noted by Senator Sanders, the spent fuel pools at the Vermont Yankee reactor which is scheduled to be shut down later this year for example has about 3,879 fuel rod assemblies in its spent fuel pool while it was originally designed to hold about 350 fuel rod assemblies.

Along with conducting the oversight hearing, to improve the safety and security of decommissioning reactors and the storage of spent nuclear fuel Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) introduced three bills.

The Dry Cask Storage Act of 2014 bill, introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders and Edward Markey, would ensure that that every nuclear reactor operator complies with an NRC-approved plan that would require the safe removal of spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pools and place that spent fuel into dry cask storage within 7 years of the time the plan is submitted to the NRC. The legislation also provides funding to help reactor licensees implement the plans and expands the emergency planning zone for non-compliant reactor operators to 50 miles.

The Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Act of 2014 bill, introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey, would ensure that states and local communities have a meaningful role in the crafting and preparation of decommissioning plans for retired nuclear plants located in those areas. The bill also requires NRC to publicly and transparently approve or reject every proposed decommissioning plan, which it currently is not required to do.

The Safe and Secure Decommissioning Act of 2014 bill, introduced by Senators Edward Markey, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders, would prohibit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from issuing exemptions from its emergency response or security requirements for spent fuel stored at nuclear reactors that have permanently shut down until all of the spent nuclear fuel stored at the site has been moved into dry casks, which are a more secure and safe option for storage.

Senators Boxer, Sanders and Markey should be credited for convening an oversight hearing on an important matter and introducing constructive bills that directly address flaws in our safety regulations. With the upcoming retirements of nuclear power plants due to economic and ageing issues, it is timely that these bills are introduced.

Donald Mosier's testimony is wrong all all 5 issues. 1)Fuel from Unit 1 was transferred out in the early days so he is wrong on that issue (minor error). The NRC maintains that there is little safety gain by moving fuel to dry cask storage.

2)The same careful engineering process employed to design the pools for 800 assemblies, went into the rerack process. If holding 2668 assemblies is unsafe, he needs the engineering data to back up his bogus claims. SCE takes no credit for the Boraflex, ie., they proceed as if it isn't there. Doubtful it could prevent criticality? They let this quack testify with a boner of a statement like that? Fukushima did not have a criticality event in the spent fuel pool and how do you experience "fuel rod fire" while the fuel is covered?

4)Not according to those who manufacture casks nor the NRC that approves them.

5)Wrong on every statement in #5 including the CNMT domes which shield the Spent Fuel Building from aircraft.

One would think that at a hearing of this kind, they would have folks who know what they are talking about.

Wow, Senators Boxer, Sanders and Markey obviously have no confidence in nuclear energy professionals, either in industry, or at the NRC. Maybe they'd be happier if we disband the NRC and just let the senators write all of the rules.

Don't we make a point of having private companies run power plants (and almost all industries for that matter) because we know that it works much better that way?

What we really need is a law that prevents the imposition of safety rules on one energy industry that cost more per life saved from the rules that apply to other energy industries. It is time for us to stop using the nuclear industry as the safety whipping boy; it's fossil fuels that are the safety risk, not nuclear.

The legislative actions initiated by the anti-nuclear three are not intended to enhance public safety. They represent a long standing policy of taking any action possible to increase the cost of operating or decommissioning a commercial nuclear facility. They are not based on science or any plausible understanding of safety or risk. NRC and industry policies currently maintain the risk from spent nuclear fuel accidents at near zero. The position of these three is simply that commercial nuclear power is scary and dangerous and not to be tolerated on any level.

After the disaster in Japan, when it was apparent the Japanese regulatory system needed to be remade, the entire nuclear world pointed to the NRC as a model. These three would politicize that model regulatory system to the detriment of all.

It would be admirable if people in positions of power and influence would consider the potential impacts of their positions and decisions regarding nuclear power on the predicted effects of climate change on the safety and security, not to mention the wellbeing of the people they purport to serve.

I would suggest that Vermont state officials have a look at the economic impact report that the Vermont state legislature commissioned in 2009 and received about two weeks after the Schumlin led senate voted (illegally as it turns out) to prohibit the state Public Service Board from granting a Certificate of Public Good for the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. The economic impact to the southern Vermont community will be real, the fear and loathing that these three propagate is not.

Senators Boxer, Sanders and Markey will stop at nothing to hinder and impede anything to do with nuclear power. It is their signature trademark. The suggestion that they should be 'commended' for anything they have done concerning nuclear matters is utterly laughable!

I am tempted to support what i just wrote with a series of egregious examples making my point, but time is not on my side at this moment, so I hope some of the readers of this comment will find the time to do some research of their own and see for themselves just how 'commendable' these senators have operated in recent years. In doing that, one could do worse than inform oneself about the excruciating role Senator Boxer (and the others) has played in the damaging saga of the ex-NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko by reading some of the articles written on this shocking subject by the estimable Rod Adams:

Good to know that spent fuel will be put in dry storage after an initial cool down period. However, this article makes it sound like nuclear is not an economic option. If the environmentalists really cared at all about solving the excess CO2 problem, they would be shouting nuclear from the rooftops! Especially the IFR, MSR, LFTR and other melt down proof and proven reactor designs.